The attention grabber, the big bold letters at the top of the articles that stop readers in their tracks. Example: “Sixty Ways to Drive Your Man Wild” or “Top Ten Blogging Tips for Beginners” or “Why Your Kids Hate You.” Careful with the sensational ones, readers hate a content tease.

HTML

Hypertext markup language. Without getting all techie, it’s the tags that create <b>bold</b> lettering, italics, indentations, hyperlinks, etc. Some gigs – blogs, websites, content providers, etc. will require writers be familiar with how to use HTML. The good news is if you don’t know the language, you can learn it free. There are tons of sites that provide the basic, more commonly used tags along with online tutorials.

Kill Fee

It’s not a stake through the heart of a writer, but it’s close. It definitely bruises the ego! A kill fee is when a magazine says they love your idea, requests you write it for a set price, you sign the contract and then once the article is written the editor has changed their mind for whatever reason. The article won’t run in the publication, but they give a smaller payment – typically 20 to 50 percent for your trouble. The kill fee practice is controversial, with some writers refusal to sign contracts with kill fees. They argue the kill fee undercuts the value of a writer’s work and that whether the article is used or not, the writer fulfilled their contractual obligations. Editors argue that kill fees protect publications from paying full price for poor writing. Take a look at a few of FWJ’s write ups about it here and here. The wonderful writers at Renegade Writer has a great piece on kill fees as well.

Landing page

If a client asks you to write something for their landing page, they want you to write ad copy for a lead generator page. This the page that pops up whenever a potential customer clicks the magic button in an advertisement.

Lede (Lead)

A lede (lead) is one of the key parts of an article. Sure, all parts are important, but the lede is the hook. After the headline, it’s what grabs a reader and makes them sit down for a few minutes to soak in your masterful prose. The lede introduces your piece to readers. “Lede” is the original spelling going back to the great days of newspaper journalism though a lot of writers refer to it as “lead” either way works. Read about lede history and impress your writer friends at your next get together.

Writing for the web is different than writing for print publications. Magazine articles have a lot of help to look pretty for the reader. On the net, many pieces are like the ugly duckling – inside there is a bevy of beauty, but no one can get past the outside. The majority of articles need to be visually appealing for readers to click, stay and link.

White Space

When people pick up a magazine they often go straight to the headline story that captured their attention, but they are mentally ready to settle in for a good long read. People read web articles with a different mindset. These people hop on the net, look for information/news and once found, they scan for important points and main ideas. They don’t want to give a lot of time to a piece unless it’s critically important or if they are in deep research mode – like in the case of government conspiracies or celebrity sex tapes.

Admit it, you’ve clicked on an article only to see paragraph after long paragraph of words and thought, “Oh I don’t have time for this.” In fact, I’d wager people do it more often than they care to admit, which is why white space is needed.

White space refers to the paper or in this case, screen space people see when they look at a page. In other words, row after row of 20 sentence paragraphs – not appealing to the eye. It’s like your neighbor who takes off his shirt to mow the lawn only to expose his shirt made of human hair. Breaking up paragraphs into smaller bite size pieces is like giving your furry neighbor a shirt. The stuff’s still there but now it looks better.

Bullet points help as well. It tells the skimmer, “Here are the important points, cut up and chewed for you.”

Photos

Photos help break up all those pesky words and brighten up the piece. Take hairy neighbor again, put him in front of a wind machine, add a professional photographer and said neighbor becomes rugged and manly. Photos help illustrate the point and mood of the article.

Let’s face it writers, while most people know words and reading are necessary, most don’t value them as much as we do. Look at this period . Isn’t it beautiful? A beautiful dot that represents so much – a pause, a finished thought or if you have three of them … an unfinished thought. Literary ants marching to the next set of words if you will… We appreciate it. Everyone else? Slap a shirt on it so they are not bored or horrified.

Visual appeal in web writing is nearly as important as the words. Beautifully crafted and executed articles with great visual appeal are sure to land more hits and links than boring pages full of dense text. Take a look at your pieces to make sure they look as wonderful as they read.

In her post Yo discusses why you needn’t worry about content site writers as your competition, but offers an enlightening look at some of the things you should concern yourself with. I’m not arguing with most of her points because they’re fair.

For the most part, I agree with Yo in that content mill rates won’t affect you if that’s not what you’re in to. Twenty years ago, freelance writers complained about the local newspapers and magazines charging anywhere from nothing to $10 per article. The folks who aspired to do better, did.

Ten years ago, folks complained about content sites such as Suite 101 and Write for Cash, but they didn’t drive down the rates either. My big gripe was with bidding sites, but I was wrong, because they didn’t drive down the rates for anyone but bidding sites writers. So I’m not going to really pick apart the logic that content mill writers aren’t your problem because there are a world of opportunities out there. No one is lowering anyone’s rates.

So I’m not in disagreement there.

I did want to explore this a bit, however. In her post Yo said:

These low paying gigs keep the hobbyists and uncommitted busy which means they aren’t competing with you. I’m not saying that content mill writers aren’t real writers or that they don’t have a burning desire to create–I’m saying that they are not business people. Many of them don’t know how or where to market themselves, but if you are going to run a successful business you have to either figure out how to do this or hire someone who can do it for you.

Now, I’ve read enough of your blog posts to know that many of you think that “cheap” writers are bad writers and are, therefore, not competition. This is incorrect. They are not competition because many of them don’t know just how much they could be making or how to get there–not because they suck. That’s why blogs like this one are so important–there are good writers out there who need to stop being coddled and instead need a life preserver. We are that life preserver.

As a former content mill writer, I don’t believe this to be true. In fact, the author of the above referenced article is also a former content mill writer. Though we rarely agree, or even get along for that matter, I will go as far as to say we have a few things in common. We both know how to market ourselves, we both love to write and we’re both business people. I don’t think either of us are lazy or naive when it comes to business sense. So why are we the exception?

Because we’re not.

Plenty of content mill writers have higher aspirations but all our circumstances are different. I’m not saying the unmotivated and hobbyists don’t exist, but I don’t believe it’s fair to lump all content writers in the same category. Knowing how many of us (freelance writing bloggers ) are former content site writers who used those careers as stepping stones to better opportunities, I’m not sure the above is true. I don’t think folks who write for content sites are any less business savvy or lazy than we were back in the day. I wrote for several content sites, but at the same time I was finding higher paying opportunities. So are many of the people who write for Demand Studios, Suite 101 and others.

I don’t feel freelance writing bloggers hold their hands as much as we respect their choices while encouraging them to seek more lucrative gigs.

I’ve met people who write for content mills on many occasions, mostly at conferences and meetups. I haven’t met a single content site writer who feels this type of writing is a hobby or long term career choice, nor have I met a single content site writer who isn’t trying to land a more lucrative contract. Most content site writers are doing so to get a foot in the door or supplement their income. Yes, there are some who view content mills as a “Work at Home!!!!” job, but they’re not necessarily the norm. Most want to learn how to market themselves, or already do. They’re happy to write for these places because

A. They get to write

B. They get to earn money in between gigs.

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest most content site writers need hand holding, because that wasn’t/isn’t the case with us.

I think Yolander’s series on writing for content sites is an excellent resource in weighing the pros and cons of these types of sites. However, I’m not sure I agree with her assessment of the types of people who write for content sites.

After all, we were there ourselves.

P.S. In all fairness, Yolander did say “most” content site writers and not “all” content site writers. I still disagree.

Did you ever, or do you now write for content sites? If so, is it your intention to land better opportunities. Tell us about your experience – did you feel it was a good stepping stone, or did you feel it made you lazy?

(For transparency sake, it’s important to note that Demand Studios is a sponsor and pays to advertise on this blog. However, they didn’t pay me to write this (or any post) and I don’t need their permission. )

There are many sides to the content site debate and I understand them all, even if I don’t always agree. One popular argument for the anti-content site contingent is that the writers are unskilled laborers turning out crappy content. While I have seen some cases of truly bad content, I know this isn’t the case for all content writers. Some content sites take great pains to find experienced writers to create quality content, but there are also sites that don’t even check writing samples or credentials before hiring. To generalize and lump every single content writer in the “crappy content” category is wrong and shows ignorance. There are some incredibly talented people writing for content sites.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t writers turning out poor content, either. Because content sites don’t pay on the high end of the spectrum there are writers who don’t feel it worth their while to put out their best results. My problem with this is that they’re only adding to the “hack” writer stereotype and they’re creating to their own bad reputation. Writers who don’t give their best effort will have their names associated with poor writing. A potential client may come upon this and pass.

If content site writers want to avoid the “crappy content mill writer” reputation and show the world they’re indeed capable of putting out quality content, here are some points to consider:

Writing isn’t rewriting

Going through the motions only looks like you’re going through the motions. Don’t put your name on anything unless you’re sure you want potential clients to see it. Your byline should always be above your best work. In this business reputation is everything. Writing and researching doesn’t mean Googling other people’s work and rewriting their stuff. Whether you’re writing for a content site, a magazine or a Fortune 500 client, a thoroughly researched, unique, creative effort is required. Anything else is just copying from other writers. Also, take some time to proofread your work and correct any errors. Don’t give anyone a reason to call you a “hack.”

If the gig isn’t worth the money, find a new gig

The complaint among some content site writers is that the money isn’t enough to give a best effort piece of writing. To that I say, “then find something more worthwhile.” If the money isn’t worth the job, don’t do the job. A content site is a client and clients expect your best. If your best costs more money, then you’re writing for the wrong client. Everything you write is part of your portfolio. It has the ability to be on the web forever. Do you really want people finding your worst work? If you can’t do it for $20, find someone who will pay more.

Branch out

Working for content sites day in and day out is fine, but it can also lead to burnout. It also puts you in a comfortable spot. The work is always there so you don’t have to troll for gigs, you can count on a regular payment and you don’t have to deal with phones or emails. The problem with this is that it doesn’t necessarily aspire you to go for higher paying markets and goals. Branch out now and then to stay fresh, try something new and jump start your creativity. Take a break from quick content once in a while to try something different. You might find some interesting higher paying markets and use the lower paying stuff to supplement in between.

Fighting for you…

I want you to know I’m on your side and I will always fight for you. However, I can only do so much. If you don’t want people to see you as someone who puts out poor content, put out your best effort every time. Show the naysayers their arguments don’t hold water.

If you hung out on Twitter for any amount of time today, you may have learned b5Media had yet another round of layoffs. This time both part time and full time freelance writers for that content site were locked out of their blogs and shown the door.

Some of the laid off writers were with b5Media since its inception about five years ago. It’s a sad day for a company that once held such a great buzz and terrific vibe. I was a blogger for b5Media and the experience was valuable (blogging lessons from Darren Rowse, I mean, does it get any better than that?) and enjoyable. As you can imagine, my heart was heavy when I learned the news. b5Media closed its entertainment portal in order to make way for a brand new portal called Crushable.com

Now many b5media bloggers are looking for freelance writing work. Last year, a couple of of writers were hired for full time work at b5Media, after many of smaller blogs where shut down and those bloggers laid off. For the full time writers, today’s discussion regarding the egg/basket thing doesn’t necessarily apply. However. many of b5’s freelancers were also let go. Some of them did nothing but blog for b5. Now, they have to scramble.

As someone who has seen many web content sites and portals close shop leaving writers in the lurch, I have been advising writers not to put their faith in one client and one client only. No client whether it’s a magazine, a business, a private client or a blog network is ever a sure thing. Businesses dry up, magazines cease publication and, yes, content sites close doors. I’ve seen this happen to at least a half dozen sites over the past ten years.

I’ve had clients provide me with enough work to keep me fat and happy for months and then all of a sudden have to put a halt on things when times get tough. I worked for a publishing company where several magazines folded leaving both full time and freelance workers out of steady gigs. I know what it’s like to lose work when a client doesn’t have money for freelancers anymore. However, I always had another client or two (or three) in place so the cash continued to flow.

No job is forever. No client is forever. Spread your eggs around, folks. Now isn’t a good time to be out of work.

Whenever I have something on my mind regarding content sites, I struggle with whether or not to discuss it here. I’m sort of tiring of the discussions mostly because at this point it’s the same people (on both sides) beating their same tired arguments to death. It’s resulting in a lot of name calling and finger pointing and it gives me a headache.

On the other hand, I really want to address some of what I’ve been reading lately.

I won’t be insulted if you skip this post in favor of one not geared towards web content sites. I’m pretty sure you’re tired of reading about this as well and while I promise to try not to continue to dwell on this topic too often. I’m not going to steer clear of honest discussions regarding rates, opportunities and putting some myths to rest. Love them or hate them, it’s important to have a dialogue regarding content sites (and all forms of writing) in order to clear up misconceptions and allow writers to make informed decisions.

The Inspiration

After reading Carson Brackney’s post about clips yesterday, I realized I’m in a unique position. You see, unlike most of the bloggers discussing web content, I have actually worked for these sites. Not only have I worked for web content sites, but I worked for other (much) higher paying places. Plus, I hire writers. It allows me to look at the web content issue from all angles, instead of making judgments based on other people’s judgments.

What really bothers me most about the web content debate is how a large number of the detractors have no idea of what it’s like to work for these sites and take rumblings from some disgruntled writers as Gospel. I’m not saying web content models don’t need improvement, or that all are a positive experience, but there are so many misconceptions floating around it’s easy to see why writers are confused.

Today I thought I’d explore some of the arguments and discuss whether they’re true, false or somewhere in the middle.

Web Content Sites are Low Payers

True: They don’t pay top dollar, that’s for sure. Some of the wages are downright insulting. I’ve even seen blog networks paying $1 or less a post. There are some other content sites offering a revenue model, which can work well but not for everyone. The pay for all of these sites won’t even come close to the dollar worders most anti-web content freelance writing bloggers like to use as an example of good pay. There are also flat fee sites paying anywhere from $10 to $30. None of these are high wages in the traditional sense.

However:

It depends on what you’re writing and who you’re writing it for. For example, if you’re an automotive engineer and you write two to three automotive how to type articles per hour, off the top of your head, you now earned $30 – $45 per hour. $45 per hour doesn’t suck. If you’re a brand new writer with no expertise in a particular area, taking three hours to write a $15 article makes bad business sense. Yes, you can earn a good rate of pay with web content, but you have to choose the right kind of content. Keep in mind we’re not talking about heavily researched writing. For that a writer should be paid more money and put time and effort into doing it right.

Web Content Site Clips Won’t Help You Land Good Opportunities

Mostly False: I do know there are some editors who won’t look at a resume listing only Associated Content as a client. However, I also know there are plenty of people who hire writers and they don’t care where clips come from as long as they are well written. Not everyone who hires a writer is an editor and not everyone who hires writers cares about content sites one way or another. It depends on your market and the content-snobbiness of the editor. Any editor who makes it more about a content site than a very good piece of writing probably is in the wrong line of work.

However:

Experience matters. Probably anyone who hires writers will take a clip from the Ladies Home Journal over a clip from Joe Blow’s Cheap Content Emporium. That’s common sense. Can content sample clips land you a lucrative writing gig. Absolutely. However, it’s also a good idea to diversify so your clips come from a variety of sources.

Web Content Sites Flood the Web with Poor Content

False: Poor writers and lack of proofreading flood the web with bad content. The problem is many content sites are hobby sites and the writers aren’t as skilled or diligent with their writing and proofreading. Why wouldn’t someone with an opinion want to receive payment for his desire to pontificate? If he can spout off about politics or NASCAR and a website wants to offer him a little change in the process, he’d be a fool not to take them up on on their offer.

Some content sites have editors and fact checkers on staff and won’t allow writers that are unqualified for particular topics. Even if certain content sites become more choosy about the people they hire, there will still be poor writing because everyone can be a published on the web. Citizen Journalists who have something to say will say it whether it’s on a blog, website or free article directory. Even if there were no content sites, we would still see an overabundance of poor and mediocre talent.If you police the content sites, you’ll have to go after everyone who puts amateur content on the web.

Web Content Site Writers are Inexperienced Newbies Who Don’t Know Any Better

False: The prejudice regarding content sites is creating some strong opinions towards writers for these sites. They don’t deserve that type of treatment. I know of one writer who used the term “hack” to describe web content writers. I know content site writers who are journalists, lawyers, pharmacists, educators and copywriters. They write for content sites for any number of reasons but they’re clearly not hacks. They’re not stupid either. They know exactly what they’re getting in to. Some will stay with web content sites and many will move on. That doesn’t mean they’re hacks. Most content site writers are well aware of their options and take pride in what they do.

Web Content Writing is Tedious

It depends: Web content CAN be tedious, it depends on who you’re working for. For blogging sites, the sky is the limit. Writers have carte blanche to discuss nearly any thing they like. For some article sites writers can choose from a list of titles. The tedious stuff comes mostly from the places that require you to write 30 articles on a given topic each month. I like to use what I call the “pallet rack example.” I once took on a client who paid me to write 30 articles about pallet racks. My friends, that was tedious and I was happy when it was over.

However: Not everyone who writes web content is doing so all day. They have more than one client and takes breaks as needed. Web content can be tedious, but each writer has a different experience. Generally, they break it up with different clients and different types of projects.

Web Content Writing is Driving Down the Rates

False: Conde Nast isn’t going to stop paying $1 per word because Associate Content pays $3 per article. Web markets and print markets are different. There are different revenue models and different types of writing. In fact, I’ve been noticing an increase in pay for content and blogging gigs. Five years ago, most regular blog gigs paid $5 per post. I’m seeing $20 per post as the low rate right now, with $35 to $50 per blog post as an average.

Also, I haven’t heard of a single case of a high earning writer being contacted by a client telling her he’s lowering her rates from $500 to $20. There were low payers 50 years ago and they didn’t drive down the rates, the low payers now won’t either. It’s just a matter of picking the kind of writing you want to do.

Content Writers are Robotically Churning Out Web Content All Day

False: Not all content writers write only content site stuff. Not all content writers work for one site only. Most like a little variety or use web content as a means of supplementing their income. They’re people not machines. Moreover, content sites aren’t sweatshops. Writers are able to set their own limits. They can write as much or as little as they like. No one is forcing them to work day and night writing evil, substandard web content.

All Web Content Sites Are the Same

False: Comparing web content sites is like comparing apples to brussel sprouts. They don’t look the same, the don’t have the same rules and they don’t pay the same. Some web contents sites are blogging sites while others require articles. Some web content sites pay $25 for an article while others pay $1. Some web content sites have a strict hiring policy while others don’t care who comes on board. Some web content sites have editors checking articles and rejecting bad content, while others don’t edit at all. Some require sources and references, others don’t check for factual information. To say they’re all the same is absolutely false.

Web Content Writing is Lazy

False: Web content writers aren’t lazy. They’re simply exploring a different avenue of writing. Because content site writers might not follow one writer’s tried and true format doesn’t indicate laziness, it means the writer is trying a different type of writing. It’s not lazy to enjoy an easy form of writing. Moreover, many web content writers also query, market and search for opportunities. From my observations, many web content writers work hard and give each job their all in order to dispel the content site myths. Taking one form of writing over another isn’t lazy. It’s a new kind of writing. Writers don’t have to take as many steps to reach the published and paid end result. That in itself doesn’t indicate laziness.

You’re Better off Starting Your Own Blog

Perhaps: It could be more lucrative to start your own blog and live off the residual income each month, this blog network is certainly proof of that. However, it takes time to build a blog. What are writers to do in the mean time? It took several years for this blog to break even, and even longer to bring in a profit. Blogging isn’t for the instant gratification crowd. Blogs are excellent sources of income when they hit, but it’s getting to that “hitting” point. This blog probably would have earned sooner if I didn’t have to do client work at the same time. So yes, blogs are good, but remember they take time to grow and time to earn.

Web Content Writers Only Write Web Content

False: Said it over and over above – nope. Not even close to being true. Web content writers enjoy a diverse portfolio of opportunities.

Web Content Writers Have No Aspirations to Seek Higher Pay

Wrong again: Most web content writers do aspire to higher pay as well as better opportunities. Many are using web content to start or supplement their income between queries or gigs. Some are earning Christmas money. Many just enjoy writing for web content sites and don’t understand why that’s so hard to understand. Show me one person who doesn’t wish to earn more money, and I’ll show you a big, fat, Pinocchio-nosed, liar.

With that said: Because web content is so easy, writers can get spoiled and not wish to break out of their comfort zones, but that isn’t because they don’t aspire to do better. It’s the lure of weekly pay, flexibility and quick projects that keep most content site writers doing what they do.

Web Content Is Not News

True: Web content isn’t news and doesn’t claim to be. Most of it is simple “how to” stuff or informational articles. It’s not in-depth reporting or journalism.

You Can Do Better

True: This is true with any job, though. Of course writers can do better than writing for web content sites, and, again, they know their options. Web content writers aren’t dummies. They know their options.

What are some of your questions regarding web content sites? Any rumors you’d like to address?

Credit where it’s due: Carson Brackney’s most recent post discusses Angela Hoy’s latest rant against content sites and the people who write for them. In his post, “Content Mills, Angela Hoy, Search Engines and the Quality of Writng” Carson explores who really bears responsibility for bad content. This isn’t to argue Carson’s point, more to discuss the difference between bad writing and bad proofreading and also to touch a little on the responsibility part. I was going to leave a comment on Carson’s blog but it got too wordy, so I’m sharing my thoughts here. Warning: This is kind of wordy too.

Every now and then I like to touch on the topic of bad writing. Because anyone can be a writer nowadays, there’s a lot of bad writing on the web. I’m not going to blame it on web content or low payers, because I know a few high payers who employ writers who, well, aren’t very good. I read “columns” written by high paid celebrities that are absolute garbage. I also know of some sales people who write their own content to sell a product, and bloggers with their own personal blogs who also put out some questionable content. On the other side of the coin there’s plenty of content on the web that’s terrific but the author didn’t proofread very well. As this community knows, I’m guilty of this very thing (but I hope I’m getting better). Sometimes, it’s not bad writing as much as it is bad proofreading.

So I feel like exploring this a bit…

Using the “Loose” vs. “Lose” Theory

In Carson’s article he makes reference to Angela Hoy’s most recent “investigation” which entailed searching for the word “loose” and citing examples of articles where “loose” was used in the title instead of “lose” in order to prove how web content pollutes the airwaves. In all fairness, “loose” instead of “lose” is a pet peeve of mine as well. However, as we were only treated to the titles of the articles and not the actual articles, all Hoy proved was that someone didn’t proofread. We don’t know if the content is poor, because we didn’t read the articles. Using “loose” instead of “lose” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a bad writer, it can also mean you’re a bad speller and a bad proofreader. There’s a difference between bad writing and bad proofreading. I post and run all the time, and though that’s not an excuse for publishing sloppy work, the truth is, it happens and it doesn’t mean you don’t deserve to live.

What makes a bad piece of writing?

Granted, some of the articles referenced in her article might be terrible, but Hoy didn’t link to them and I didn’t read them, so I have no way of telling. However, if the whole article was filled with typos, poorly formed sentences and misinformation, I would have to agree it’s a crappy article. If it’s factually correct and well-written, but simply has a typo in the title, I can be forgiving. I’ve found typos in Writer’s Digest on more than one occasion and I don’t see anyone going after them. There’s a difference between bad writing and bad proofreading. Should we publish articles that are victims of poor proofreading? Of course not. However, to say a well written article with a typo is what’s wrong with the world today is kind of silly.

Who bears responsibility

I’m very vocal about writers being responsible for their own writing. I don’t think it’s the fault of the content site any more than it’s the fault of McDonalds for hiring someone who can’t be counted on to show up for work on time. Anyone who accepts any gig needs to do said gig to the best of his ability or move on. However, I also believe content sites need to be more selective with the writers they hire.

The problem here is the content site’s purpose. If it’s a site geared towards hobbyists, there’s a whole different set of standards than the site geared towards putting out “how to” content or news. Getting upset because someone who writes for a hobby site used “loose” is like getting angry at the people who volunteer to put together a community newsletter for not properly structuring a paragraph. You can’t compare a site like Hub Pages to a site like Demand Studios. They have different pay, different requirements, a different purpose, and sometimes, different writers.The content site that wishes to be viewed as an authority and trusted source of information does bear more responsibility than the hobby site. You can’t go after a site for hobbyists and say “you’re polluting the web” because they’re not claiming to put out reputable content. However the site that employs editors and fact checkers has no excuse.

There are a variety of reasons why a bad piece of writing hits the web, but the bulk of responsibility belongs to the writer. It’s the writer who should proofread several times before hitting “send” and it’s the writer who needs to do more than Google and rewrite when researching information. It’s about pride. It’s about not wanting anyone to read something I wrote and seeing “loose” instead of “lose.” The authoritative content sites need to ensure they hire quality writers, and the editors must do their jobs properly, but any writer who habitually turns in poor writing, doesn’t deserve the gig.

Bad writing isn’t exclusive to content sites

I’ve said it before, if you think bad writing is exclusive to web content sites, read the “Twilight” series. Read the church newsletter and the high school newspaper. Read the newsletter at the Senior center or the weekly Mayor’s address. I find typos on a regular basis in books, magazines, newspapers and on websites. Poor proofreading is everywhere. To say content sites lower the quality of writing on the Internet is like saying the moms who started the neighborhood watch newsletter are lowering the quality of journalism.

Typos vs. Quality

Something I worry about more than a writer using “loose” instead of “lose” is a junior high school kid stumbling upon a piece of fluff in his research and thinking it’s good information. Content sites do bear the responsibility to make sure content is factually correct. Thankfully most schools (and parents) have caught on and don’t allow sites such as Wikipedia or Associated Content to be used as sources or references. Still, folks need to back up their facts. If a writer has no medical experience and they’re Googling and rewriting some bad medical writing they found, a disclaimer would be nice. Personally, I feel people who don’t know a thing about medicine shouldn’t be giving out medical advice, but since there’s no way to police this, we need disclaimers. Folks need to know how writers come across their information. I can overlook a typo if the article contains good information, but I can’t overlook bad information.

News vs. Content

Now, the question was asked if web content sites lower the quality of news on the Internet. I don’t know that they necessarily do. Most web content sites with writers who report the news are relaying the facts so it’s not like they’re getting it wrong. Multiple television stations, websites, magazines and newspapers report on the same scandal. Having someone in web content discuss the same thing doesn’t mean it’s lowering the quality. However, most content sites aren’t reporting news. “How to Tie Your Shoelaces” isn’t news. News and content are two separate puppies.

Are you done yet, Deb?

This went kind of long and I need to wrap it up. I hope it makes sense and I hope I proofread well enough.

Content isn’t evil. Web content sites aren’t evil. Bad writers are everywhere and it has nothing to do with where they work or how much they’re paid. It’s the writer’s responsibility to write well and it’s the editor’s responsibility to to edit. If you’re going after web content sites for a case of bad proofreading, you’re also going to have to go after sign makers, newspapers, sales people, newsletters and magazines. Typos are everywhere. Bad writing should go, but using “loose” instead of “lose” doesn’t a bad article make. It will make me stop and pause. It will make me think more about the writer and the writing, but it’s not a deal breaker.

Do you insist on having quality appliances in your household? Are you a little obsessed with your Kitchen-Aid mixer, your Blue Star range or your professional stick blender? Are you the ones your friends call when they are upgrading their kitchens? If you are passionate about researching and reviewing household appliances and are a writer with interesting voice and impeccable grammar, we’d love to have you writing for us.

LoveToKnow is an online media company, seeking freelance writers to create web articles and slideshows on topics pertaining to appliances on an ongoing basis. LoveToKnow is a fast-growing content site with useful articles in channels devoted to a variety of popular topics.

Pay is per article (generally $20 for a 650+ word article) and work is part-time, but we look for writers committed to contributing (generally 15+ articles per month) regularly. We need several writers with this expertise.

This is a freelance telecommuting position you can do from your home computer.

Make sure to highlight your relevant experience, and include “Appliances” in the qualifications field. In addition, please include at least two short writing samples as part of your application, as well as a detailed history of your work experience.

Cocktails writer

Are you an expert in liquors and liqueurs? Does your blender work overtime when you mix daiquiris and blended margaritas for your friends? Are you a writer by day and a bartender by night? If you truly understand the art and science of mixology, then we have a writing gig for you.

LoveToKnow is an online media company, seeking freelance writers to create web articles and slideshows on mixed drinks and cocktails on an ongoing basis. LoveToKnow is a fast-growing content site with useful articles in channels devoted to a variety of popular topics.

Pay is per article (generally $20 for a 650+ word article) and work is part-time, but we look for writers committed to contributing (generally 15+ articles per month) regularly.

This is a freelance telecommuting position you can do from your home computer.

Make sure to highlight your relevant experience, and include “Cocktails” in the qualifications field. In addition, please include at least two short writing samples as part of your application, as well as a detailed history of your work experience.

Web Design / Social Networking Writer

LoveToKnow, an online media company, is currently seeking freelance writers to create web articles and slideshows pertaining to web design and social networking. If you are a talented writer with interesting voice and impeccable grammar, and expertise in web and graphic design including the newest Internet technologies, web hosting technologies and the latest in online tools and social networking techniques, we have a gig for you.

LoveToKnow is a fast-growing content site with useful articles in channels devoted to a variety of popular topics. We are expanding our web design and social networking channels and would love to hear from you.

Pay is per article (generally $20 for a 650+ word article) and work is part-time, but we ask writers to contribute regularly (generally 15+ articles per month).

This is a freelance telecommuting position you can do from your home computer.

Make sure to highlight your relevant experience, and include “Web Design” in the qualifications field. In addition, please include at least two short writing samples as part of your application, as well as a detailed history of your work experience.

Deb’s note: This interview is part one in a series featuring content sites. As there have been much speculation and a few rather lopsided “investigations” regarding content sites, I thought it would be fair to talk to the people behind the content sites and let them tell the FWJ community a little about what they do, the benefits to their writers and why their sites are unique. Please note, these interviews aren’t endorsements, freelancers are always encouraged to make the decisions that work out best for them.

In 1999, when I first began looking for freelance writing work, I came across a series of ads by a writer inviting freelancers to write for Suite101. I was accepted and wrote my column, Everyday Humor for three years. At the time “The Suite” paid a flat month fee for three posts per month. I enjoyed working for Suite101 but moved on because of higher paying opportunities. I’m pleased to bring you an interview with Editor in Chief Colin Smith.

First, tell us a little about who you are and what you do

My name is Colin Smith. I am the Editor-in-Chief for Suite101.com and I manage the editorial department for the English-language division of Suite101.com Media Inc. I am a veteran journalist and publisher with 25 years of experience in print and online operations. I love being the EiC at Suite101; it’s an honour and a privilege to help support the ambitions of freelance writers-journalists around the world.

What is Suite101?

Suite101 is an online magazine written by over 4,000 freelancer writers. Some people call us a writers network; others consider us to be one of the most respected sites in the category of “how-to” articles. We’ve been publishing freelance writing for thirteen years and we also operate sites in Germany, France and Spain. It’s our mission to create opportunities for writers.

How is Suite101 different from other writing and blogging sites?

Here are five key things that set Suite101 apart from other sites:

1. We have the best revenue-share program online: averaging $3.90 per 1000 pageviews, and writers’ earnings get paid-out forever, there’s no time limit.

2. We hire internationally: you can live anywhere and still write for us.

3. Direct contact and guidance with professional editorial staff: writers get valuable feedback and communicate with editors directly.

5. Quality focus: we’re selective about the writers we accept and all articles are well-researched pieces. Writers must submit at least two articles to join.

Tell us a little about the history of Suite101

Suite101 was created by writers for writers thirteen years ago, and this fact continues to shape our mission. (We’re here to help writers be successful, not to amass owned content.) As a Canadian company, we also have the freedom to hire writers from any location in the world, so this attracts a lot of interested parties. Last year, we launched a site in Germany and this year, we launched sites in France and Spain.

Perhaps the most significant part of our history happened in 2005, when we realized that to succeed we needed to live and breathe the value of “writers first.” Not only has this philosophy attracted writers, but we have more than doubled our readership each year since then. We grew from two million unique visitors a month in 2005, to 24 million a month today.

How many active writers are with Suite101 now?

Over 4,000 internationally, mostly in the US but from a range of different countries.

What does Suite101 offer as incentive and pay for their freelance writers?Daily revenue share for all articles published on the site, averaging $3.90US per 1000 pageviews. (Note: A writer’s revenue share is ongoing, it lasts forever. There is no limit to a writer’s earning potential.)

* Daily revenue share for all articles published on the site, averaging $3.90US per 1000 pageviews. (Note: A writer’s revenue share is ongoing, it lasts forever. There is no limit to a writer’s earning potential.)* Bonuses based on levels of writing experience* Seasonal and theme-based writing contests with cash prizes

What does the average Suite101 columnist earn in a given month? What do the highest earners earn?

It’s fairly common to earn $200-$300 a month, with a large group of writers earning $1500-$2000 month, and our highest monthly earning was just under $5,000.

We have a group of writers too who say Suite101 pays their mortgages every month – even if they don’t write another article for us!

What sort of traffic does Suite101 receive on a regular basis?

24 million unique visitors a month

What are some of the more popular articles?

* It’s quite balanced across the site with 20 sections and 400 topics to read* Lifestyle sections do very well: Parents & Partners, Home and Garden, Travel
* We attract less of an audience for History, Politics and Sports

What would you like to say to the people who criticize Suite101 for being a low-paying content mill?

Firstly, I would introduce them to Lena Gott. Lena is a part-time writer who has published 228 articles after two years of writing for Suite. Lena earned $5,000 for her articles in July. On average, she earns around $2,000 a month.

Secondly, I would point out there is no limit as to how much you can make on Suite101. There is also no baseline guarantee. For new writers just starting out, the latter fact can be discouraging. We see their experience change as they add more articles and continue writing here for three months, or six months.

For writers who actively engage with our site and work with our editors, Suite101 quickly produces a significant income stream. For people who give it little time and effort, they will likely not enjoy as much success. As is the case with any job, the more effort you put into it, the more reward you earn!

For people who learn, understand and practice the key concepts for great online writing, Suite101 is the best site to generate ongoing, revenue share income over the long term.

What are your thoughts about all the other content sites? Room for everyone? Too much competition?

Competition means more visibility, which is good for all sites. Just as people choose a college based on the school’s reputation and standards, writers choose online publishers with an eye for quality. We believe Suite101 is synonymous with editorial integrity and professionalism. Suite101 writers are proud to display their articles on our site; they relish the opportunity to engage other writers as part of our supportive community, plus they have a direct link with a high caliber editorial team. And of course, Suite101 writers appreciate the fact they own the copyright to their work too.

What are some of the things we can expect from Suite101 in the future?

o More features that make it even easier for writers to work with, and get feedback from, our editorial team.
o More tools and ideas focused on helping writers become successful online.
o A cleaner “look” to the website designed to make it even easier for readers to find what they’re looking for.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

We’ve built our reputation around a commitment to editorial quality and we plan to continue on this track. We invite all writers who are confident of their writing skills to apply at Suite101. If accepted, get ready to write! We look forward to meeting you.

When I began FWJ, I promised the FWJ community I wouldn’t post any jobs paying below $10. Things have changed, though. I’ve received a flood of mail from the FWJ community asking me to rethink my position regarding certain content sites. Here’s a sampling:

Deb, you always say we should make our own choices. Please post all jobs except scams and let us make our own decisions regarding the low paying jobs.

It’s true, I do say that.

Suite101 is my highest paying client. I don’t know why you don’t include their jobs in your listing.

and…

As long as a job isn’t a scam or term paper mill I don’t have a problem with seeing the listings here. Content sites might pay lower but they’re definitely “legit.”

Plus…

I consider myself a hobbyist. I enjoy writing and the opportunity to earn money is a nice perk. I’d like to see what kind of content jobs are available.

So, every now and then I like to put it to the FWJ community. What do you think, should we include jobs for all content sites at FWJ?